masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Omega
High Charity I've just decided to play through Halo 2, and realised the astonishing similarity between Omega and High Charity (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/High_Charity_%28Structure%29) worth noting anywhere..? Sir Jcd 18:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :Except High Charity is huge compared to Omega, it is only a visual comparison and that is not worth noting. Also High Charity was the capital of the Covenant while Omega is a lawless place. Overall no real comparison and not worth noting. Lancer1289 18:22, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Yes they are similar in apperance, however in function, , purpose of the resemblance, residents, and the leaders, they are completly different so I would say no to mentioning this. Paladin cross 18:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :Honestly, they aren't even that similar in appearance. The only visual similarity is the shape. Every other visual detail is quite distinct. Hardly what I'd consider an 'astonishing similarity', more like a passing resemblance, which can be explained by pointing out how common mushroom-shaped space stations and structures are in sci-fi. Just look at Earth Spacedock from Star Trek. SpartHawg948 22:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC) : You guys are aware that even if you refuse to acknowledge the similarities (large or small) of both structures here, you guys get a mention both at halo.wikia.com and halopedian.com right? I mean, thats the entire reason I'm here. 07:09, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :And that is their decision about what they allow for trivia. They allow it there based on their guidelines, but we don't allow it here because of our guidelines. Just because they mention it there, doesn't mean that we have to mention it here. Also there are only a small amount of similarities. Lancer1289 07:15, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) And they're entitled to mention us if they so choose. We, on the other hand, don't see the need to link two structures that share a very common design simply on the basis of said very common design. I mean, let's be real here: Star Trek has been using space stations with the same general shape since the 1980s. So why assume a link to High Charity, instead of to Federation Starbases? When you look at it that way, High Charity itself could easily be said to be nothing more than a reference to Star Trek. Again, the other wikis can do whatever they want. We, however, don't accept baseless "trivia" based on nothing more than visual comparisons and very common sci-fi themes. SpartHawg948 07:17, January 3, 2011 (UTC) Also High Charity is really similar to Cloud City from Star Wars in both function and appearance. --ROFL 01:46, October 21, 2012 (UTC) Shelba Deletion In playing Mass Effect 2 several times, and also reading Mass Effect: Ascension, I think that this line "Close to the planet Shelba..." should be deleted on this wiki. Although Drew Karpyshyn wrote that in his novel, it has been said from Mac Walters that there are some details in the book that do not appear in Mass Effect 2, and thus are not canon. It is clear that Omega is not near any planet, and the closest is the gas giant Urdak, then the lifeless rock Bindur. Shelba, as described in the book, does not appear anywhere in Mass Effect 2, and thus should not be considered canon, in my opinion. PARAGADE74 15:51, June 17, 2010 (UTC) :I'd have to disagree. IIRC, the book doesn't specify how close to Shelba Omega is. (I could be wrong, as it's been ages since I read it... I really need to find my copy again) Additionally, can you say for certain that Shelba isn't one of those nearby planets (such as Urdak or Bindur)? Remember, we know that Omega goes by at least five different names. Why should this apply only to Omega and not to the nearby planets? SpartHawg948 18:11, June 17, 2010 (UTC) ::I also disagree with removing the information, and after some checking, Shelba redirects to the Omega article. Shelba could just be another name for one of the planets in the system. Also on what page does this appear on again? Lancer1289 18:49, June 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Do you mean the page of the book Ascension where Shelba appears? It's on pg. 94, and I quote: "...he'd agreed to meet her here on Shelba, a desolate, uninhabited world in the nearby Vinoss System. The atmosphere on Shelba was breathable--barely--but the temperature was always well below freezing...The world was ignored--undeveloped and empty." (Karpyshyn, 2008) This could explain why it wasn't on the galaxy map in ME2, it probably wasn't known, or just ignored. But, yeah, it isn't in the Sahrabarik system, it's orbiting a possible neighboring star named Vinoss. PARAGADE74 03:16, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::And I also take back what I said about this not being canon, as really the only error here is Shelba being near Omega (which means it is orbiting the Sahrabarik star, which is obviously false). It can stil exist if BioWare desides to recreate the Vinoss system in ME2 (complete with Shelba) in the future. So I still think the phrase "Close to the planet Shelba..." should be deleted with these above facts. PARAGADE74 03:30, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Ummm... no. Saying that Omega is near Shelba does not mean that they both have to be in the same system. After all, near is a relative term. Shelba is near Omega if we compare it to the Citadel, is it not? It appears to be in the same cluster, which (speaking in terms of Mass Effect) does make it near Omega. And of course, you have to factor in that a canon source says that the two are near each other. Since nothing has come up to directly contradict this, it's still fact. Near does not mean 'in the same system', it just means 'near'. SpartHawg948 03:35, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Fine. However, if Shelba is recreated somewhere down the line and the Vinoss system (or whatever else BioWare decides to rename it) is added to the Omega Nebula or wherever else, then the phrase should be deleted. Plaintiff rests. PARAGADE74 11:35, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::The phrase should not be deleted, now or even if the system and planet are added to the same cluster, for the simple reason that it is canon. Again, at no point is it stated (either in this article or in the source) that Shelba and Omega are in the same system. If anyone reads that much into it, quite frankly that is their own problem. Our job is not to word everything so that there is no possible way for people to mis- or over-interpret it. That just can't be done. The canon sourcing says that they are close, that Shelba is in a "nearby system". Nothing has come up that contradicts this. Even if, as you say, Shelba is added at some point, somewhere else in the Omega Nebula, this will not contradict the canon. Personal opinion on how the text reads is not enough to override canon. The defense rests. SpartHawg948 19:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC) Inspiration for visual appearance I know the article says that the devs wanted it to look like a mushroom cloud, but has anybody asked if the Kadeshi motherships from Homeworld were at all a visual inspiration for it as well? IMHO the visual similarities are striking... 21:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :Um yes the look alike, but a passing visual is all that this one is. They are ships, while Omega is a station; the comm antennas are going in the wrong direction; Omega is hollowed out of an asteroid. There are more differences than similarities and the only thing in common is they look alike. I can also say that Omega look more like High Charity or a a Federation Starbase, and more in common with them than the motherships. Lancer1289 22:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) No more so than the similarities between Omega and High Charity from Halo. We know for a fact that the devs were working off of the shape of a mushroom cloud. Beyond that, it's easy to see similarities between Omega and any space-bound mushroom shaped object, like the Kaseshi mothership, High Charity, several of the Starbases from Star Trek, etc. That doesn't mean that those other mushroom shaped objects were design influences. SpartHawg948 22:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Mad Prophet Knew this would happen. Nothing else (but the batarian page) links to the Mad Prophet; in Wikipedia, that would be cause for marking Mad Prophet with an "orphan" tag. The only other sensible link to the Mad Prophet would be from his locale; the Mad Prophet is located on Omega. Seems to me that linking to him from here is a small way to make the Wikia more comprehensive. --AnotherRho 20:08, September 17, 2010 (UTC) :Orphan pages... another wikipedia feature that isn't to be found on this wiki. The Mad Prophet isn't a location, nor is his "soapbox" a fixed location, like stores are. Sure, it never moves in ME2, but I think we can safely say that it does move from time to time. The Mad Prophet isn't notable in any sense other than that you are probably bound to notice him standing there yelling. No importance to plot, to missions or assignments, no dialogue or interaction with Shepard or squad members, no other mentions (news stories, etc.), nada. At least, that's my thinking on the subject. SpartHawg948 20:54, September 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Agreed with the above statement and that is why I removed it. Funny yes, but when put next to the shops and Afterlife, not notable. Lancer1289 21:04, September 17, 2010 (UTC) All right, I'll add it to the trivia, since it's a fact and part of the Mass Effect universe, but not a matter of advantage/disadvantage or similar "notable" things. (Incidentally, the mad prophet can be seen in the SB video of Aria's men shooting that blue suns merc). --AnotherRho 15:29, September 18, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not sure that is even trivia now that you mention it. I'll think on that for a little while and also see what Spart says about it. It really just seems more trivial than trivia to me. I'll leave it for now however. Lancer1289 19:14, September 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Come on, Lancer. This is a Wiki. It's a fact and part of the ME universe; and this is an "encyclopedia" of ME, i.e., a collection of facts and their interrelations, and not an aggregate of independent articles and photos. I agree, it's too noteworthy to be reduced to trivia, but trivial? It's a deliberate, rather unique and interactive part of Omega, instituted by one or more designers, which adds more color and depth to the story, and provides the only anchor to the occasional news story or advertisement which is "paid for by the Enlightened Followers of the Word". --AnotherRho 05:11, September 19, 2010 (UTC) District names? Recently, I've been trying to compile some information on Omega (for which this wiki has been invaluable!), but it made me realize something--there's no listing of the known, named districts of Omega anywhere on the wiki, at least not that I was able to find. I know at least two have pages (Gozu District and Kima District), but I'm not sure if there are other named ones mentioned elsewhere in the game or in the books. So my question is, would adding a list of the known districts to the article be useful and in line with policies? There's some precedent in the form of, for example, the list of known wards on the Wards page. And there's enough information about some of them (or at least Gozu and Kima) to actually have some pertinent information in the list, not just a plain list of names. Alynnidalar 02:34, January 3, 2012 (UTC) :Sounds like a good idea. I'll add a section for districts to the page. I think Gozu and Kima are the only named districts so far, however, and I don't recall the books or comics naming any others. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:08, January 3, 2012 (UTC) ::I've added the section. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:22, January 3, 2012 (UTC) ::: Cool, thanks! I just may have to reread the books again to see if they mention any specifically... what a hard burden, right? :) Alynnidalar 04:10, January 3, 2012 (UTC) Should i add all the characters you could meet here? Bafija (talk) 15:30, April 21, 2017 (UTC)